You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

No, actually, the victim in either scenario is based on the person or group whose fundamental rights are being violated, it has absolutely nothing to do with how sympathetic a person or group is.

I would be curious as to how you define fundamental rights. The right of gays to do business on the same terms as everyone else seems rather fundamental, while what these supposed Christians are arguing for is simply the right to deny them that right.

In any case, the Constitution guarantees us only freedom of belief, not freedom to act out all the tenets of every faith. Polygamy, for instance, is prohibited; certain Native American groups have been denied permission to use traditional but now-illegal substances in rituals; female genital mutilation is banned, and the threat of it abroad is now grounds for a girl to seek asylum. The claim of conscience didn't hold for racists, draft dodgers, or tax evaders, and it won't hold for Christians who reject the inclusive example of Jesus, either.

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

I would be curious as to how you define fundamental rights. The right of gays to do business on the same terms as everyone else seems rather fundamental, while what these supposed Christians are arguing for is simply the right to deny them that right.

In any case, the Constitution guarantees us only freedom of belief, not freedom to act out all the tenets of every faith.

Fundament rights are rights upon which lesser rights are derived and based upon, the dilution of which is likely to have a similar effect on other rights in ways that are often not immediately apparent. As for the proposed law in question, gays (or anyone else) is equally free to seek exemptions based on the same legal criteria, just as they are currently vulnerable to the same coercions, which the government would then be obligated to demonstrate a compelling state interest to justify refusing.

Agreed, only those tenets which the government can't come up with a very compelling state interests to prevent. The government has a compelling interests in not allowing state officials to discriminate nor to allow discrimination for most private goods and services, but not to force private business to directly participate in activities contrary to their moral or religious principles.

What damage does the existence of legal avenues to seek moral or religious exemptions cause to a specific state interests on this matter? And why is said damage sufficient to dilute the protections of the First Amendment?

Fundament rights are rights upon which lesser rights are derived and based upon, the dilution of which is likely to have a similar effect on other rights in ways that are often not immediately apparent. As for the proposed law in question, gays (or anyone else) is equally free to seek exemptions based on the same legal criteria, just as they are currently vulnerable to the same coercions, which the government would then be obligated to demonstrate a compelling state interest to justify refusing.

Agreed, only those tenets which the government can't come up with a very compelling state interests to prevent. The government has a compelling interests in not allowing state officials to discriminate nor to allow discrimination for most private goods and services, but not to force private business to directly participate in activities contrary to their moral or religious principles.

What damage does the existence of legal avenues to seek moral or religious exemptions cause to a specific state interests on this matter? And why is said damage sufficient to dilute the protections of the First Amendment?

The protections of the first amendment do not cover all actions conducted in the name of religion. The three examples I listed are just a few of the precedents that illustrate its limits. I suppose it hinges on what you consider participation in an activity. A vendor who provides goods and services is not the same as an active participant. Compelling active participation would be the equivalent of requiring the Christian objector to attend the ceremony as a guest. A photographer should no more be allowed to withhold his services than Office Depot should be allowed to refuse to sell the couple stationery for printing invitations. It is a business transaction at that point, not a religious or moral event.

Would you allow an avowed white supremacist to refuse to provide a service in connection with a mixed-race wedding? If so, at least your position will be consistent, if no more justifiable.

Yes, when living in a society, we trade some individual freedoms for the collective good. A large part of that good is ensuring everyone else can exercise the maximum possible freedom, too. Just as everyone should have equal justice under the law, everyone should have equal access to commercial interactions in the economy. People whose morals are that incompatible with this system are not compelled to remain in the society that values its benefits.

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

It's likely the Arizona governor vetoes the bill even though she's a Republican. Why? Because big business is against it (denying gays rights can hurt profits). And big business is the true master of the Republican party. I'll be shocked if Brewer actually signs it.

In the eyes of the law, and as a matter of legal precedent, it IS equitable, just as the rights of Phelps were deemed to be equally relevant and applicable despite the fact that he's a gigantic shit-head whose actions caused emotional anguish for a sympathetic party. See my response to Coriolis above, ITS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE RIGHTS PARADIGM that has ultimately facilitated development on gay rights. I gave the example as a means of forcing people to consider the implications and consequences of their position when applied to different scenarios, as an example of legal rather than moral equivalence!

*Incidentally, I was talking about neo-Nazis, not the actual perpetrators of a genocide.

Yeeesh. Way to lose your cool.*

You don't need to respond to any more that I post, as I'm tired of beating my head on the wall. (If you want to, fine; but I will be moving on.)

- We're both amateurs here, but when I note how the professional career jurists are framing this differently than what you've suggested (giving you an opportunity to address that), you conveniently ignore it. Have you read the decisions on some of these same-sex marriage cases, to see what precedents they are arguing from?

- You seem to view the "rights" and "social justice" paradigms as binary opposites in your comments to Coriolis, but I don't think they are nor that the "rights" paradigm is an aberration, it's all part of the same package. Was it a misguided "rights" paradigm that provided liberation to children, or women, or people of other faiths, or people of other skin colors? It's difficult to separate social justice from independent rights in terms of implementation or even philosophically; we are both individuals as well as part of the social collective.

- Any descriptions I've provided of actual, brutal discrimination against the class of people in question has been conveniently ignored as if non-existent. How you can hope to properly understand the real forces at work here if you can't even acknowledge that past social abuses are playing directly into current stressors? I think it's a difficult sell to portray this as religious people being victims when they've been the abusers early on and have greatly outnumbered the 5% of the population that identifies as LGB; in fact, the turnarounds of the last 20 years are based on a majority of non-LGB people finally seeing real legitimacy in THAT particular framing of the situation, after years of turning a blind eye.

- As far as the legal aspects (which you seem to care more about), this whole fireball was instigated over the realization that same-sex marriage was going to happen and that legal protections (such as for medical insurance, jobs, housing, military acceptance, etc.) for LGB people had actually been established in society. These recent "religious freedom" rules are just yet one more legal strategy to try to sidestep the protections that have been put in place, since THAT legal battle was lost / will be lost shortly. Meanwhile, even the Republicans in AZ saw this bill as a lousy idea, to address a problem that did not exist in AZ, which already has protections for religious freedom.

I am well aware of the application of individual rights, to the degree that I mentioned in these threads before that trying to establish these kinds of broad religious exemptions for conservative Christians is a terrible strategy; you might as well just shoot yourself in the head now. It remains blind to the reality that the landscape has changed politically and culturally and will CONTINUE to change, and that if the conservatives establish laws allowing this kind of discrimination under the guise of religious freedom, they also open the door to being discriminated against themselves on the same basis... in (and here's the kicker) a culture where they are no longer the majority. Within thirty years, once the Boomers are gone, they will really be a minority and vulnerable to discrmination based on the religious beliefs of others in a pluralistic society.

*Incidentally, you used the word "Nazi." If you mean "Neo-Nazi," then please use the word "Neo-Nazi." And "Nazi" in any context naturally brings up the connotation of "genocide."

"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

She spends the first part reaffirming her alignment with the conservative base (appeal to God, acknowledging their concerns are not misplaced about federal overreach, what religious freedoms the constituents already do have, and her own specific efforts and achievements to further their cause while in office).

She then explains why she vetoed the bill, including opposition from the businesses the bill was supposed to protect, how the bill is trying to solve problems that don't currently exist, and about how the bill could be exploited because it is worded too broadly.

She finally offers a polite redirect of future energies to issues she raised in her State of the Union, such as resolving the AZ budget in pursuit of supporting business, as well as protecting children.

People will read it differently depending on their particular affinities, I am sure, but I don't think it could have been written better or worded more succinctly.

And, again in agreement with the FOX article I saw, she nowhere mentions "gay rights." I think that was smart overall (she avoids inflaming one side or the other), and I think this also means the resolution can't really be claimed as an equal rights victory, although indirectly it was involved.

"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

They're operating within the confines of their legislation really. Congregations, were orginally a european community institution, where the local churches would be created via the christian organization(and early on by missionary such) political influence on the local communities. Ceremonies held by the church, such as marriages, were semi-legal and partially incorporated, in the kingdoms national body of laws, aswell as the provincial laws, both including statues and common law.

But since the constitution of the US is entirely secular, and doesn't recognize any religious authority, organization, and lacks religious constituents(unlike medieval european legislation). Ceremonies such as marriage services that are accorded by churches and congregations are entirely informal arrangements within religious communities. And they do technically have the right to deny such a ceremony, because religion is not an institution of the US state(unlike say states like saudi-arabia). What homosexual political organizations can do, is to appeal these laws(which is difficult, because of the above), or just go for civil unions. I don't really see the difference between religious marriages and secular ones.

"Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

- We're both amateurs here, but when I note how the professional career jurists are framing this differently than what you've suggested (giving you an opportunity to address that), you conveniently ignore it. Have you read the decisions on some of these same-sex marriage cases, to see what precedents they are arguing from?

- You seem to view the "rights" and "social justice" paradigms as binary opposites in your comments to Coriolis, but I don't think they are nor that the "rights" paradigm is an aberration, it's all part of the same package. Was it a misguided "rights" paradigm that provided liberation to children, or women, or people of other faiths, or people of other skin colors? It's difficult to separate social justice from independent rights in terms of implementation or even philosophically; we are both individuals as well as part of the social collective.

- Any descriptions I've provided of actual, brutal discrimination against the class of people in question has been conveniently ignored as if non-existent.

- As far as the legal aspects (which you seem to care more about), this whole fireball was instigated over the realization that same-sex marriage was going to happen and that legal protections (such as for medical insurance, jobs, housing, military acceptance, etc.) for LGB people had actually been established in society. These recent "religious freedom" rules are just yet one more legal strategy to try to sidestep the protections that have been put in place, since THAT legal battle was lost / will be lost shortly. Meanwhile, even the Republicans in AZ saw this bill as a lousy idea, to address a problem that did not exist in AZ, which already has protections for religious freedom.

Within thirty years, once the Boomers are gone, they will really be a minority and vulnerable to discrmination based on the religious beliefs of others in a pluralistic society.

I lost my cool because you implied that I was morally equating Nazis with gays, or the victimization of moral dissenters on the subject of gay weddings with Jewish holocaust victims, combined with frustration at what seemed to be a willful distortion of my point in the comparison.

Yes, and the gay marriage decisions are kind of irrelevant for what this is: a First Amendment issue.* Also, while I wouldn't regard marriage as a minor 'right' (I'll ignore the problematic nature of equating positive rights with negative rights), its hardly in the same league as religious freedom or free speech, which happens to be explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Rather, they are concepts which sometimes conflict, and one must choose to prioritize one or the other when that happens, preferably based on general principles rather than the emotional resonance of any particular case. When one has made such a distinction, the impact of one goal must pass a substantial threshold in order to justify even a comparatively minor dilution of the other goal.

Not non-existent, just of no relevance in classifying the type of case it is, and less important than First Amendment protections when one must be weighed against the other.

The disingenuousness of many of the advocates is not relevant to the Constitutional questions of the case, nor is the threat of being labeled with 'guilt by association' a good reason to surrender important principles for short-term convenience.